Jump to content
LOTROCommunity
Sign in to follow this  
Stobbit

Turbine Official Roleplaying Rules and Policy Announced

Recommended Posts

Not much different from the current policy (bar the horrid examples Turbine gives). The question is: how well will they enforce it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Player Biographies. Players may create biographies for their characters. These biographies must be in character."

Someone else noticed this too. I don't play my Laurelin character much, but I know a noticeable amount of those that have something in their bio are not in character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about biographies. A list of alts is OOC. Someone's crits on Epic Conclusion or their killing blow on $mob/$monsterPlayer is OOC too. The latter serves no purpose, but can it be moderated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not much different from the current policy (bar the horrid examples Turbine gives). The question is: how well will they enforce it?

The LFF channel in-character enforcing will be interesting to see.

About alt list and crit hits... I hope they don't mind about the alt listing, but crit hits never served any purpose in my opinion. I got half a mind (in more ways than one) now to continue my Laurelin burglari-... pickpocke-... sneaki-... scouting. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LFF has always been in character, but those are the Regional LFF channels that are referred to. Unfortunately, they passed on the opportunity to explicitly do something about Globallff on Laurelin, because they've placed player created channels into the "can be either" category. Ho hum.

And like MueR, I think they've more or less adopted CM's rules without change. The test is what GMs do about tickets. And, especially, whether they are more informative than CM's useless lot. I always found it stupid that they would not even say whether a reported name was going to be changed. Ridiculous, considering you can just add that name to your friends list & keep an eye on it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LFF has always been in character, but those are the Regional LFF channels that are referred to. Unfortunately, they passed on the opportunity to explicitly do something about Globallff on Laurelin, because they've placed player created channels into the "can be either" category. Ho hum.

And like MueR, I think they've more or less adopted CM's rules without change. The test is what GMs do about tickets. And, especially, whether they are more informative than CM's useless lot. I always found it stupid that they would not even say whether a reported name was going to be changed. Ridiculous, considering you can just add that name to your friends list & keep an eye on it...

Would that we could have done that mate, unfortunately the number of instances of players "taunting" the players they had successfully got renamed, thus resulting in a ticket war we had to moderate, made that policy a non-starter. Players sticking the reported player on their friends list to "check" generated enough extra tickets as it was. When an element of the player base uses the naming report function as a weapon against people who have hacked them off it gets very difficult to keep a lid on it to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too had hoped they would do something about the global channels, in one form or another. I recall having a lengthy email exchange (I think with you Sincilbanks) about the possibilities of moderating those channels. GlobalLFF and its counterparts on other servers have always been the 4Chan of LOTRO. Too much random banter in a channel that everyone knows is meant for LFF. The policy was always lacking on this, which is regretable, though understandable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Muer, I think it was indeed with me :)

Agreed Muer, it wasn't a lack of will that stopped us moderating the globallff channel but it really boiled down to 2 practical things

1) If we moderate one player channel we would very likely end up having to moderate them all. Either that or end up putting in some kind or "player channel request system" where the channel is submitted to us, reviewed and approved as being moderated by the GM's. This while great in theory is a major admin ballache I'm afraid that would cost us time and resource. It's one of those "thin end of the wedge" situations that I viewed as simpler to not even start getting into to be honest...

2) We'd have to synchronise this new approach to the player channels with Turbines support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was (or is) there the possibility of making "hardwired" global channels?

GLFF just like LFF - but global - for every player per default.

GTrade just like Trade - but global - for every player per default.

GOOC just like yada yada yada

GAdvice ....

4 non-player channels to moderate, and that's it. (Besides - with an GOOC which is per default active for every player, the spam in GLFF would stop instantanious)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was (or is) there the possibility of making "hardwired" global channels?

GLFF just like LFF - but global - for every player per default.

GTrade just like Trade - but global - for every player per default.

GOOC just like yada yada yada

GAdvice ....

Not from our perspective. We didn't have the tools to do that. I'm guessing it would have needed coding in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this may be a slightly obvious but...why don't Turbine create an 'Official' GLFF channel? Then it can be moderated properly?

Or is there a flaw in my thought?

-Tiger(Wyn)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carebear hit them, they think it's too much work, who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too much effort for them to solve a minor problem, in their mind, is my guess. Adding another channel can't be so hard, really. I'm hoping now that all servers are under Turbine's wing and they are directly in charge of RP servers of EU, they might give more interest to this. Or am I just being overly optimistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this may be a slightly obvious but...why don't Turbine create an 'Official' GLFF channel? Then it can be moderated properly?

Or is there a flaw in my thought?

-Tiger(Wyn)

I can't see any flaw in your thinking there Tiger... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would that we could have done that mate, unfortunately the number of instances of players "taunting" the players they had successfully got renamed, thus resulting in a ticket war we had to moderate, made that policy a non-starter. Players sticking the reported player on their friends list to "check" generated enough extra tickets as it was. When an element of the player base uses the naming report function as a weapon against people who have hacked them off it gets very difficult to keep a lid on it to be honest.

That's a better response than the last time I replied on this topic on your forums, Sin. That time, one of your GMs attempted what amounted to ad hominem, which I promptly shot down in flames. Guess what? You're about to get the same... ;)

If your bath sprang a leak would you say "Oh, I'll wash everything in the sink from now on, because it's easier than fixing the problem"? No, didn't think so. Your GMs have always been apathetic / disinterested in enforcing your own alleged rules. There is a toon running around on Laurelin right now with the the name of a major Fantasy character, except that he's transposed two middle letters (that actually make little difference to the phonetic pronunciation - you might choose to say Faa instead of Fa. Oh, was that a clue? Naughty me!). I have reported it; your GM's have done nothing; it is a clear breach of your rules.

They are not and never have been enthusiastic about the naming convention. In fact, before you switched away from Alchemical Dreams, I can recall a conversation with one of their GMs that went "It's the first time we've had to deal with this, it's a pain in the arse". Kudos to CM for the fact that you were willing to put it up in the first place, but you are paper tigers.

Taunting - you can cover that in your rules. "If you report a player name, it must be a genuine complaint. If the GM's feel that you are abusing the naming rules to target other players, they may take action against you. This may include orchestrating complaints against a name, taunting another player by sending tells or mails in game, and any other evidence the GM's may accumulate that a ticket is malicious."

Ticket war - the notion is ridiculous. You, Codemasters, are the only ones that hold power. A ticket war is about the equivalent of Luxembourg falling out with Russia or America. You can squelch that any time you want. The only question is to what extent you are willing to take action against paying customers. Any time you wish to exert your power, the amount of extra tickets will drop off a cliff. The moment players realise you are taking action against deliberate harassment (which is what taunting is; which is already covered by the CoC), the torrent of tickets would become a dribble.

Finally, my initial point is that having your GM's refuse to say whether a name had been changed is stupid & counter-productive. I have never asked for an explanation of their decision (because it would have been an uninformative & pointless "It did / not break the clause you cited"); I have never asked for them to say what the name has been changed to (I don't care; I care only that an inappropriate & rule-breaking name has been properly dealt with). But to deliberately reply "Unfortunately due to privacy issues we will not inform you about the ongoing state of the investigation or any steps taken against those involved" is simply insulting. Citing "privacy" is Class I, Grade A, 24 carat bullshit. Whether I choose to do so or not, I can put the offending name on my friends list; I can see whether or not you have changed it.

If you choose to not change a name, you're in charge. If you have a policy of not explaining your decisions, you're in charge. But to refuse to say what your decision was, when I have means to see what that decision was... That says to me that you have little or no care for your customers; "We'll do whatever we like, and up yours!" This is all moot, because Turbine will be responsible for the game this time next week. But I care enough about better & worse ways of doing things to put the thought into your mind now. CM presumably expects to be hosting MMOs in the future. Is this really a good way of behaving towards your players?

I don't think that it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*lots of stuff*

A very very very good rant.

I do think that you are somewhat disingenuous with the use of the word "you" because you have directed your response at an individual and, after all, the GM's can only do what they are allowed to do...

..apart from that.. 100% agreement.

Using an excuse that amounts to "it's too difficult" is pure cop out. If a company / business chooses to sell a particular service then they have, 100%, a responsibility to "police" and maintain the service that they are professing to provide. If said company cannot maintain the service they promote they have a duty to amend their service offering to reflect their capabilities.

Saying that they will enforce a rule, and then saying they won't because it is "too tricky" is ...*oo lots of bad words*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the plural & impersonal "you", SoDT. I'm not having a go at Sincil; it's directed at CM as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chill out mate, this is supposed to be a rational discussion amongst rational people. You asked the question, I answered it? Fine you don't agree with my reasoning, I can accept that...

"Whether I choose to do so or not, I can put the offending name on my friends list; I can see whether or not you have changed it."

Of course you can, it causes us problems sometimes but yes you can.

"Finally, my initial point is that having your GM's refuse to say whether a name had been changed is stupid & counter-productive."

Yes, I got that, did I not answer your point? Once again I appreciate you didn't much care for the answer or the reasoning, but nevertheless I did respond?

"But to refuse to say what your decision was, when I have means to see what that decision was... That says to me that you have little or no care for your customers;"

I don't believe it says that at all. (but then I wouldn't would I?) There are two parties here, the ones reporting the name and the reported one.

"CM presumably expects to be hosting MMOs in the future. Is this really a good way of behaving towards your players?"

Yep, we do, and yes I do. Look I get you don't agree with me, I really do. But I still believe it's the right way to go about it, you don't and I think that's all there is to say left on the subject?

"I have reported it; your GM's have done nothing; it is a clear breach of your rules"

This isn't your initial point (see above) and what I was responding to (but is inevitably what all discussion about naming get into. "What about xxx name, what about yyy name") Given the amount of names we get reported on all servers, it's perfectly possible someone (possibly even me) has made a call that you don't agree with. Because at the end of the day that's what it comes down to. Someone in our offices making a judgement call (and even in your open and shut case, the name is obvious because it sounds phonetic apparently. Maybe the owner of the account is Swedish and it doesn't sound like that at all when pronounced with a swedish accent, maybe the owner has a bunch of other characters and the name fits into that other set of character, maybe, maybe, maybe...) It's what it is at the end of the day, a judgement call from someone, and inevitably there will come a time when a GM will make a judgement call which is different from the one you make. We can debate individual cases until the cows come home and I promise you that's what everything will come down to...

And finally..

"If a company / business chooses to sell a particular service then they have, 100%, a responsibility to "police" and maintain the service that they are professing to provide. If said company cannot maintain the service they promote they have a duty to amend their service offering to reflect their capabilities."

I'm not sure I understand your point? We offer a set of rules for naming, we enforce those rules (as best we can, within the limits we have). I thought the point was about telling the players about the result of namings? Where does that fall into not "maintain the service"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And finally..

"If a company / business chooses to sell a particular service then they have, 100%, a responsibility to "police" and maintain the service that they are professing to provide. If said company cannot maintain the service they promote they have a duty to amend their service offering to reflect their capabilities."

I'm not sure I understand your point? We offer a set of rules for naming, we enforce those rules (as best we can, within the limits we have). I thought the point was about telling the players about the result of namings? Where does that fall into not "maintain the service"?

Apologies, this was more linked to Tigerwyn's comments regarding the lack of provision by Turbine of a Global LFF..... and was not meant to part of the CM policy on name change notification debate...

I apologise for putting it where I did, it was a bit out of context, but the excuse of stuff being "too difficult" has been used a number of times in the past for not getting stuff done (especially since the introduction of the Store), and it makes me most grumpy ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chill out mate, this is supposed to be a rational discussion amongst rational people.

Sin, if you sought for a year, you'd have a hard time trying to find a worse way to begin your reply. I am not het up, I was nothing other than rational. I am an analyst by nature, which is why I am an analyst by profession. Way to piss someone off - imply they're out of control. Ad hominem will never make you friends on the internet; it will certainly do the opposite. I reckon you didn't mean to do that, but if you are someone customer facing in CM, you need to learn better. If it's any consolation, it's taken me years to, errrr, reign in my natural exuberance to the limits it's now at. Which may not be sufficient! ;)

You asked the question, I answered it? Fine you don't agree with my reasoning, I can accept that...

Good. But don't try to defend your position with... oh this is Middle Earth, let's find an apposite metaphor... a shield made from a fishing net! ;) Your argument is a corporate line. I have no idea whether you personally believe it or not, but you stuck your head above the parapet (bravo, that man! ;) ), so it's you & your words that I have to respond to.

"Finally, my initial point is that having your GM's refuse to say whether a name had been changed is stupid & counter-productive."

Yes, I got that, did I not answer your point? Once again I appreciate you didn't much care for the answer or the reasoning, but nevertheless I did respond?

Yes, you did respond. I appreciate you taking the trouble to do so. My appreciation earlier was a tad understated ;), but it's there nonetheless. And explicitly stated now - there's no good reason for you engaging in this discussion, CM are losing the game, unfortunately. Nevertheless, if you put forward a bad argument, I will take it apart, 'tis my nature, sir! ;)

"But to refuse to say what your decision was, when I have means to see what that decision was... That says to me that you have little or no care for your customers;"

I don't believe it says that at all. (but then I wouldn't would I?) There are two parties here, the ones reporting the name and the reported one.

"CM presumably expects to be hosting MMOs in the future. Is this really a good way of behaving towards your players?"

Yep, we do, and yes I do. Look I get you don't agree with me, I really do. But I still believe it's the right way to go about it, you don't and I think that's all there is to say left on the subject?

Yes you would, and I quite understand that. As I've already said, I also wonder how much you personally believe in the position you have to defend, but I'll never know the truth of that, cos whatever you tell me, I'm a cyncial old so-&-so, so unless you tell me what I think is true... ;) And for the second part, Russia vs. Luxembourg again. I have no power. I am simply offering you a point of view, I hope well argued, that gives CM reason to review their business processes. If you (the corporate you) decide that nothing needs to change, that's up to you. It's no odds to me; no profit to me to voice an opinion. Since there's another voice in what is still a very small community backing up that opinion, it might well be worth CM discussing what has been said.

"I have reported it; your GM's have done nothing; it is a clear breach of your rules"

This isn't your initial point (see above) and what I was responding to (but is inevitably what all discussion about naming get into. "What about xxx name, what about yyy name") Given the amount of names we get reported on all servers, it's perfectly possible someone (possibly even me) has made a call that you don't agree with. Because at the end of the day that's what it comes down to. Someone in our offices making a judgement call (and even in your open and shut case, the name is obvious because it sounds phonetic apparently. Maybe the owner of the account is Swedish and it doesn't sound like that at all when pronounced with a swedish accent, maybe the owner has a bunch of other characters and the name fits into that other set of character, maybe, maybe, maybe...)

No it isn't my initial point. I extended the discusssion. I blame you; you responded. ;) I'll PM you the name if you like. There aren't any excuses for it. I can't believe it's an unfortunate juxtaposition of letters; it is, quite deliberately, what it is. Someone knew what they were doing when they picked that name. See also below...

And finally..

"If a company / business chooses to sell a particular service then they have, 100%, a responsibility to "police" and maintain the service that they are professing to provide. If said company cannot maintain the service they promote they have a duty to amend their service offering to reflect their capabilities."

I'm not sure I understand your point? We offer a set of rules for naming, we enforce those rules (as best we can, within the limits we have). I thought the point was about telling the players about the result of namings? Where does that fall into not "maintain the service"?

No, you don't enforce them, that is my extended point. Your rules say one thing; there is a very strong perception that you are lax & weak; what you do does not follow what you have written. The GM I referred to in my last post said words to the effect of "I've checked. We've renamed 7 out of 8 of Raedwulf's most recent tickets, we're reviewing the other one. He's talking crap." I pointed out that I'd given up reporting anything that wasn't absolutely cast-iron guaranteed in breach of the rules because I knew that the GM's were not interested. And even there... If I were mildly interested I could report 3 times the number of names that I do; if I were fanatical about it, I could report 10 times the number. But what would be the point? Proving that your GM's; be it their choice, or CM's orders; will only change the most flagrant breaches? I already know that.

My previous example, naming & shaming is frowned upon, so I won't. But imagine that someone names their hobbit Sawmise. It's perfectly obvious what they've done. It's about where this other toon stands. That is in breach of your published rules. You can make all the excuses you want; they hold about as much water as your shield. ;) I am Luxembourg, I will abide by whatever your rules state, or I will take my business elsewhere. What I object to is that CM speak with forked tongue. You do NOT enforce what you publish. If you do not want to do so, then change what is written; if you do not change what is written, make sure that what you state is the rule of law.

You do not do so. I can give you a much worse example, one that personally affected me. You are the owning company, you make the rules. Be honest. In respect of your naming protocol, Codemasters never has been. You do not enforce what you claim are your rules. You never have done. That is not a subjective judgement. Either do what you say, or change what you say so that it matches what you actually do. Anything else will erode respect in your customer base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Sin, if you sought for a year, you'd have a hard time trying to find a worse way to begin your reply. I am not het up, I was nothing other than rational. I am an analyst by nature"

The next post following yours described it as a rant. I merely picked up on that...

"Good. But don't try to defend your position with... oh this is Middle Earth, let's find an apposite metaphor... a shield made from a fishing net"

I wasn't aware I'd done that? I gave merely gave examples of things that we might have taken into consideration more to illuminate how these discussions end up with people disagreeing with what's appropriate and what isn't...

"Your argument is a corporate line. I have no idea whether you personally believe it or not, but you stuck your head above the parapet (bravo, that man! ), so it's you & your words that I have to respond to."

I am the CSM, I set the policies with input from my GM team. My GM's follow those policies, sometimes while disagreeing with me :) If I thought it was wrong I would have changed it, much as I changed several things over time...

"CM are losing the game, unfortunately. Nevertheless, if you put forward a bad argument, I will take it apart, 'tis my nature, sir!"

Have at it then good sire if it so please you. I didn't put forward a "bad argument" I was explaining our position in the hope it would give some people a small insight into some of the problems we face supporting the game. I'm perfectly happy to discuss this, but in terms of "winning or losing" an argument, if you think you're ever going to win an argument on the internet. Well good luck with that.. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...